Monday, April 1, 2013

The New York Times' Biased View of Teachers

A recent
New York Times article, “Curious Grade For Teachers: Nearly All Pass,” finds
incredulous the idea that, “In Florida, 97 percent of teachers were deemed
effective or highly effective in the most recent evaluations.” The author goes
on to cite similar percentages in other states and concludes: “The teachers
might be rated all above average, like students in LakeWobegon, for the same reason that the older
evaluation methods were considered lacking.” In other words, the teachers score
well because the measuring standard is flawed. And this conclusion is
reinforced by the observation that teachers’ high marks were achieved “even
when students were falling behind.”

Unfortunately,
newspaper journalists are apparently not held to any standards at all because
the article omits all the crucial information that situates these statistics in
a meaningful context.

Teachers
typically must have a college degree and between one and two years, if not
more, additional college course work to obtain a teaching credential, not to
mention hours spent in classrooms where they can practice teaching and receive
mentoring from experienced teachers. Is it really surprising that after such
intense training almost all teachers achieve competency?

Imagine a
course in basic welding where students attend class for several months. At the
end of the course students are required to take a test. Would it be surprising
that 98 percent of those who completed the course passed the test? If fewer
passed, one might reasonably raise questions about the quality of the welding
course.

More
importantly, there is no mention in The New York Times article of the
authoritative study on student performance conducted in the 1960s, as reported
by New York Times columnist, Joe Nocera in an April 25, 2011 article (“The
Limits of School Reform”): “Going back to the famous Coleman report in the
1960s, social scientists have contended – and unquestionably proved – that
students’ socioeconomic backgrounds vastly outweigh what goes on in the school
as factors in determining how much they learn.”

Similarly,
the article fails to note the growing poverty among children in the U.S.
Currently more than one in five children live in poverty. Between 2009 and
2010, child poverty grew by more than a million. Given the debilitating impact
of poverty on child development, there can be little wonder that more students
are “falling behind,” despite teachers’ valiant efforts. And when the poverty
statistics are coupled with the dramatic decline in government funding of
public education, one can only marvel that our public schools succeed at all.

The current
corporate narrative that has pervaded the mindset of politicians and the
mainstream media inverts logic. Student failure is not a result of poverty or
underfunded schools. The blame lies entirely with the teachers and the unions
that defend them – a classic example of blaming the victim. Of course,
politicians find it much more convenient to blame teachers and their unions for
student failure rather than address the real causes of student failure since
the politicians themselves are at fault. They have chosen to cut the social
safety net and funding for schools so that the rich can continue to enjoy their
ludicrously low tax rates and huge tax loopholes.

As
inequality in wealth grows, inequality in power grows proportionately. The
corporations and the rich want to eviscerate the teacher unions, impose market
relations on public education, and open the door to private, profit-making
alternatives. As corporations funnel more money into lobbying and campaign
contributions, politicians have become cheerleaders for the corporate agenda.
By underfunding schools and allowing poverty to grow, they are causing the kind
of failure that can be used as an excuse to open the doors to private profiteers.

What is
really curious is why The New York Times author was so quick to uncritically
adopt the corporate perspective and jump on the bandwagon of attacking the
teachers. Perhaps he was one of the few students who failed his critical
thinking course.

> The article above is reprinted from Counterpunch. It was written by Ann Robertson and Bill Leumer. Ann is a Lecturer at San FranciscoStateUniversity and a member of the California
Faculty Association, while Bill is
a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 853 (ret.).